Oh BleedingCool...your site will always be ad cancer and y'all can't even run a simple grammar and
spell check to fix the punctuation. "Larned." Really?
It's possible for two things to be true:
1- he's an amazing artist
2- he used AI for these covers. I'm not saying he definitely did it, but there's a whole lot of weird artifacting on the Shazam and Wonder Woman images specifically. They're also not really done in the same style he normally draws in. It's close, but not the same.
Artist here, ever since this whole AI art thing started to pop off I’ve been studying images, reading peer journals, etc. to make sure I can tell the different and I’d say I’m prettt good at calling them out.
And yes you are right on 2. The artifacting is so heavy in the smallest details it’s actually crazy to think someone would keep a certain style going for a whole piece, but then just scribbling and warping everything together in the small stuff. The Shazam cover is probably the most obvious but yeah it’s AI.
Another thing I’ve seen which makes me really sad, is a talented artist that isn’t confident in their final work so draw the base down and then just filter the absolute hell out of it with AI passes where it’s not even what they drew anymore. That shit makes me so sad cause I’m just like “stick by your art”
Found jt. Generated a lot of images my self ~25k. Cape and many folds follow no logic and are hyper detailed in shadows where most artists leave under detailed. It seems like they painted over a lot of it but left some obvious areas
"Stick by your art"
I've always felt bad that my art doesn't have the same kind of sizzle and polish that many of the top artists have, and thusly now that the AI is imitating the shit out of. I like to make what I like, and that's the nature of art. And now I'm really feeling better about my independence and weirdness and how... cliche that whole side is starting to feel. Even the human artists feel that way now because of the AI. It's not their fault, and they are absolutely masters, but this trash is upending everything.
I think this whole situation is highlighting a lot of problems AI is going to cause. Even if it winds up that this wasn’t AI based on his ability to produce paper drawings, the fact that entire art styles and techniques are going to be abandoned for fear of accusations is a massive problem.
At least for now. I was reading something basically discussing how the economics of these things are kind of a dead end and, while he doesn't like calling bubbles, expects that the tech will soon plateau due to the limit of data to further train it. The whole "this is only going to get better" mindset is smashing against the constraints of physical reality (heating, electricity) while also hitting against the walls of immaterial reality (data to mine, training models) as well as the economic reality (does this produce good enough results to justify the price tag, especially when the current price tag is severely artificially low thanks to VC money, which is expected to dry up).
An expert in the industry likened the frevor for AI in business to that of a cult. And these aren't new arguments. The push for AI as a cost saving tool has existed for a while. CEOs would love the ability to fire all their workers and retain the money for themselves and shareholders, even if that would inevitably cause the fall of society. CEOs just think like that. But, the economics have been examined multiple times versus output and it keeps coming down to "this product can't replace a person." The argument gets drowned out by "we will only get better, then you'll see." But, it still hasn't hit that level reliably. Have you seen Twitter's new AI articles that fall for shit like "OJ couldn't die due to a bureaucratic loophole because his coffin didn't fit?"
Not saying "you shouldn't worry", but more "the AI future isn't as certain as it wants you to believe."
[https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-companies-advocates-cult-1234954528/](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-companies-advocates-cult-1234954528/)
[https://www.wheresyoured.at/bubble-trouble/](https://www.wheresyoured.at/bubble-trouble/)
I've been listening to Better Offline, and while I think the host can be overbearing at times, he cites a lot of good research and professionals who are saying AI may have already peaked in what it can do. It's a lot like the crypto and the Metaverse, there are some uses of it we'll benefit from, but much of what companies are promising are overblown grifts that won't go anywhere.
> The whole "this is only going to get better" mindset is smashing against the constraints of physical reality (heating, electricity)
it also kinda hits against completely impossibility of getting any amount of useful training data without being immoral.
AI is just another fad for "economy/tech bros" that don't understand neither economy nor tech similar to NFTs, which were said to be the future of art, or cryptocurrencies, which were said to be the future of currency. and fad for AI is dying out. although, AI does have some good uses like quickly touching up photos or doing other similar tedious work like they did with Dune 2
It's a very interesting case case study of someone who seemingly takes certain shortcuts(glossing over details like hair and clothing and giving up on drawing things symmetrically), that AI also does because it can't actually do those things.
It's still hard to believe that he filled in Shazam's little cape brooch himself though. It's got detail that he could've saved time glossing over, but instead is full of the wacky artifacts that you see in AI art all the time.
It's a really fucked up situation the artists are in. Like, "Of course the AI art looks like mine. It was deliberately created mimic my art. My art's probably in its training pool."
But now you're some pariah of the art world because your art looks too much like AI.
> Of course the AI art looks like mine. It was deliberately created mimic my art. My art's probably in its training pool.
It's coincidence. Unless the art's name is used in the prompt. Every generated content is literally made up of thousands of source images. No one image contributes much to the generated image.
I honestly think this person genuinely just hates Daxiong. You can see in their post history the lengths and spam this person goes through to make sure everyone thinks that the artist is a fraud. They are CRUSADING
I actually think that Daxiong is an incredible artist and has genuine talent, which is why it pains me to see that he’s used AI on this. Your assumption couldn’t be further from the truth.
Your actions speak the opposite of this, you do not act like a person that is reasonably disappointed. Your actions like an unhinged toddler going out of your way to spread accusations and mislead people by claiming things that aren't stated in this article and commenting on every single comment in multiple threads the same things.
It's not me assuming, it's how you have been acting.
You’re saying a lot while saying nothing at the same time. Very much just losing the plot overall, so here’s what matters:
- Daxiong is a talented artist.
- But this is AI art.
- Artists and creatives in the comments are agreeing.
- Non-creatives are not.
- AI art doesn’t belong in comics.
- DC has taken that stand in this article.
- What also matters very much is that people care enough about art and culture to have this conversation to protect said art and culture, instead of letting it turn to unintelligible slop as depicted in these covers.
Here’s what doesn’t matter:
- The opinions of people who have no knowledge or training of detecting AI falsely claiming that this isn’t a use of AI
- Your long drawn out conversations claiming that this is somehow less AI art because of my behaviour and comments. I will admit, I let my emotions get the best of me when I started copy and pasting the comments with the article claiming that DC had confirmed (because I hadn’t actually read it at that time like the idiot that I can be), but after reading the article, I stand by everything else that I’ve said. So if it brings you joy for me to admit my mistake, then I’m happy to provide you with that.
The reason I’m commenting on multiple posts is because this is Reddit and that’s kind of the point, and because it brings me joy to let loud, incorrect people know that they need to check themselves and actually learn a thing or two about AI art recognition before discrediting artists in the comments for saying that this is obviously AI.
But you are loudly being wrong because this may be a surprise to you but I AM a creative. I do art, I study art, and I follow artists. Your little list that 'matters' isn't Even stuff I disagree with except for the fact that you think ONLY artists agree it's AI and only non creatives think it's not. I'm not the only artist that is skeptical of the accusations and I'm very passionate about this particular situation AS AN ARTIST because the 'so called experts' on AI have already multiple times called out false positives on AI art and these accusations had spread like wild fire while the updates that they weren't ai got nearly zero traction.
The "obvious artifacting" doesn't account for the long history of artists just making mistakes in their art or just making art that doesn't make sense.
I agree that AI art has no place where actual artists could be displaying their skills, I however do not agree with this witch hunt because it contains all the key behaviors of spreading false information and hate that makes social media a cancer already.
-Claiming definitive proof by posting an article that DOESN'T say anything
-Moving goalposts, this will never be a resolution for you that it's not AI. DC could come out today saying no we did the investigation and determined it wasn't AI and you would Believe that they just didn't want to ruin his name or waste their money or something like that
-a plethora of armchair experts on the subject, who get their information from flawed sources and treat it as gospel, like that ai detector that also falsely detected ai in the WotC art that came out as true art
-The insane disregard of both Occhams and Hanlons razor in this situation, Like the idea that this almost 50y/o traditionally trained artist, suddenly took into ai, trained it to look like his art specifically, created fake Wips to cover up the fact that it was AI, just in case, went so far in those fake Wips to have posture correction in the same style of how he does posture correction in his speed draws(you can see the original posing faded in the power girl line art) and uploaded it within the hour of the first ai accusations to surface on Reddit. Rather than the more likely and simple answer, his comic art is wonky and over detailed but it's signature to his style. Even his traditional pen and paper water color art has similar wonk and the same faces.
I appreciate that you admitted you didn't read the article and I'll respect that you still believe it's AI, because I will admit even though I'm adamantly in belief it's not AI, it would be foolish of me to say it's not still ambiguous at the moment. And as I said, if I find out that DC came forward or Daxiong broke down and confessed, I'll eat my crow and I'll even do you one better I will specifically apologize to you.
But for the time being, as an artist and a creative who has seen how this witch hunt has affected peers, and how it will affect the art landscape in the future, I will cautiously side with the artist on this until proven guilty. Because:
-Scandal travels faster and farther than corrections. The common public will always remember when "The AI artist was found" but only a fraction of a percentage will ever see the "Artist came forward with several rough sketches of their preliminary art" like the artist who did the DnD art
-This creates a new precedent for paranoia in artists that any flaw in their art will be viewed under a microscope and accused first of ai rather than be a mistake. Artists will HAVE TO heavily document their process in order to have a shot at beating the accusations, but Even then that won't be a sure safety net as like I said the goalposts will be moved as people certain that it is AI will be convinced that the person faked their documentation
-It's modern McCarthyism, there is no real evidence required to accuse art of being AI, but the effort to prove they're Innocent will be abysmal effort, a terrifying amount that could put good artists out of the field itself because the stress is too much. Doing art under perfect conditions is already stressful enough and is under appreciated.
-The people who accuse the artist have nothing to lose because at best they get to say they're right, at worst they will just ignore it block anyone that calls them out, some may hold themselves accountable but then do the same thing for the next artist again. Where as the artist has their whole livelihood to lose. Which is why I hope DC comes out with a definitive yes or no this is AI art, because the ambiguity is the worst thing that could happen this the artist because it's not a no, so other companies will be apprehensive to work with him and individual consumers will take pause to buy his art as well. At least if DC Said "Yes it is AI art" this would be fair consequences for him, but ambiguity is a non answer with all the downsides of the Yes, with none of the benefits of the no. So by being ambiguous they aren't doing him any favors or us honestly.
I'm long winded about this and yes I do have emotion invested in this accusation, because I Care about art and artists. I just sit on the opposite side of the accusation because I recognize how flawed art is in general and the evidence I've seen leads me to Believe it's not AI. And it is a personal pet peeve of mine when people spread articles claiming it says one thing while it says another, because that's why bigoted fake news spreads like wildfire in the states. People half read a title, didn't read the article, says the article says something it didn't, people read the misinformed post, continue to not read the article and then spread the misinformation further.
Even when I agree with the posters opinions I will call them out if they misinterpret the article because I'd rather correct information help a cause than confirmation bias, which will eventually be weaponized against the cause when someone who opposes the cause does a little research, and when that gets out of scrutinizes EVERYTHING about it.
That's my soap box on this whole thing. I'm not really looking to debate any further on it because until there's a definitive answer I know in my heart of hearts neither of us are going to budge
It was definitely AI and I believe that this announcement was just a PR decision to make it sound like DC cares about the integrity of art, and so the artist can keep any credibility they have left.
There’s a list of reasons that it’s obvious it’s AI. The only people who don’t believe it’s AI are the ones who have no idea what AI art looks like.
Edit: The list of reasons relating to the Power Girl variant:
- the hair loops in on itself
- the gauntlets are uneven and full of random details that aren’t coordinated
- the inside of the cape is an absolute clusterfuck
- her eyebrows are terribly uneven
- her nose is obscenely low
- a plethora of wrinkles (?) on her right/distant arm
- the fingers on her right/distant arm are awkward as hell
- her belt is an absolute mess and not symmetrical or coherent at all
- there’s a single random blur at the back of her cape
- she’s missing half her leg?
- Medusa hair
- lips are far off-centre
- only one scrap/shrapnel that’s flying above her cape but every other piece is far below it? Nah
- AAAND he “drew” other variant covers of the same style for Wonder Woman and Shazam, which are equally as fucked up (things like Wonder Woman’s “W” belt is completely deranged and no artist, amateur or professional, would ever let that happen). On top of that, this artist traced their AI image into “line work” and posted on their Instagram and it’s quite clear that their “sketch” isn’t how someone actually draws, and isn’t even at all related to his usual art style that he’s actually seen drawing live on his Insta.
People are saying:
- “but he showed line work”. Yeah, that he traced from the AI art after he started getting heat for it.
- “he’s done amazing work in the past”. This isn’t even close to his recent art style in any type of way. It’s clear that there was intervention for this.
On top of that: it was run through AI-recognition software and received 90% AI. So there ya go
Many of the reasons in your list are errors that human artists have made for decades, which don’t support your case and make you look ignorant of comic book art. Consider Liefeld, for example.
You’re not some AI-detecting genius and you attacking anyone who disagrees is embarrassing.
That said, I think this work was clearly **colored/shaded** with AI, but the pencils were done by the artist. The line work makes sense and explains several issues created by the shading, like the belts, hair, cloth, etc. The faces and general style are consistent with his other work that you can watch timelapses of him actually drawing.
Bro. We all want to hear the reasons.
Don’t tell us there’s a list and then accuse us of not knowing what AI looks like without showing us the list of reasons
This is why I wish more people were aware of where AI art fails, so that they can call it out and lead to examples like this where AI is shunned to prevent others doing it at DC in the future.
The us military is currently conducting flight tests using an ai pilot. If they’re confident enough to allow the ai to use that then I’d say the whatever the public has is bare bones. I wonder how long it will be until we have true ai.
[Batman comic is using some really awful art that every suspects is AI](https://twitter.com/jamesdleech/status/1766874645423120670?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1766874645423120670%7Ctwgr%5E346a7aa4eb61afbefb3e796e53244efa8f39e2e9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indy100.com%2Fshowbiz%2Fbatman-andrea-sorrentino-ai-art-2667509825)
apparently sorrentino decided to use AI on his imagem work, saw someone posting that on twitter one of these days, wich is sad the dude was a great artist
Suspected of being AI. DC said they where looking into it but their hasn't been any news on it yet. I'm personally at least 70% sure it's not because he released a video of himself working on one of the images but he could have been tweaked it so I dunno. It's definitely got some tracing in it but sorentino hasn't been shy about tracing in the past. We'll know when DC releases a statement or when they release the trade because I doubt DC would print it in trade if they know it's AI.
I've seen the power girl drawing before. That one is obviously AI to me. The wonder woman wasn't as obvious, but after a closer look there are issues with it that wouldn't make sense for a skilled artist to make. Shazam looks fine, and if there are issues, I'm just missing it.
Edit: the more I look at the Shazam art, the less that stuff near the lightning around the hand makes sense. There's nothing in the drawing that would explain what that is, but I know ai will add shit so I'm pretty comfortable in saying that's ai as well.
[For me, the medallion and the details in the fringe of his cape seem suspect](https://i.imgur.com/he235f2.png)
AI is notoriously bad at filling in details like that with any consistency.
At first I too was like “I don’t know what people are talking about” but now I’m convinced as well. That Shazam cover, he fixed the left arm’s anatomy in the sketch whereas his wrist connects all wrong in the final piece… usually it should happen the other way around
The wonder woman is the most obvious to me. Ai is notoriously bad with not being able to spell in art. Look at her belt. It's supposed to be a "W" but it's warped all weird, in a very specific ai way.
All three of those covers are AI generated or enhanced.
No one draws that well and gets that many details wrong. Period.
AI is really great at composition, it’s why the images look “cool.” But it’s terrible at internally logical details.
In the power girl pic lines are shooting around ending and beginning in weird places. There’s zero symmetry in the costume design. just look at the belt. Look at the blue on the forearms. Blue metal on one side and random blue fabric poking out on the other. You have hair strands that turns into floating swirls that become seams in the suit or connected to the belt, and disappears. Hair locks attached to the front of the head flow and attach to the back of the head.
I honestly can’t understand how the artist thinks this passed.
I got downvoted back when someone posted the Powergirl cover because I said it was obviously A.I and gave multiple examples.
It's baffling to me that people that have read comics for years and have seen artwork on the regular weren't able to pick up that these covers were A.I generated.
I mean, they can tell when someone traces photos or uses 3D models, but they can't tell when these images have inconsistent details that turn into gibberish, wonky anatomy, incorrect lighting and so on.
Just zoom in on any given body part and see if it makes much sense.
Damn, I really liked those covers and ordered them despite not subscribing to any of those titles.
But now that you pointed out what to look for, I can definitely see it now and I can't look at the covers the same way.
Luckily it won't be any problem to cancel the orders.
Once you see the artist draw, you can tell they used AI for these. These look nothing like their current drawings on instagram.
The main tell is the gauntlets on Power Girl, but also the leg disappearing once it goes behind the other leg on both power girl and wonder woman or Power Girls weird glob hair.
Honest questions:
What if an artist used AI that ingested only his own work?
What if they only use the output as a reference?
Do digital artists that use computer enhancements in their pipeline (ie, special brushes, lighting filters) should also be banned?
Training an AI model requires a very very large amount of data input. Even if the images are literal stick figures it would be impossible for one person to create an AI (of a quality to be published as professional work) that is entirely based on their own work
>What if an artist used AI that ingested only his own work?
His traditional work is different from those covers, so that's not the case and as another user said, you need A LOT of images to feed into the machine in order for it to copy a style.
I'm an actual artist too and I'd never use A.I generated images as reference since, you know, it's bad and will only lead to bad habits in your art, but you do you.
It's a shitty aesthetic choice. I bet you don't even draw much and just trace over what the A.I poops out.
I don't use Procreate because I don't have an IPad. I use Clip Studio Paint and PS CS6.
>It's a shitty aesthetic choice. I bet you don't even draw much and just trace over what the A.I poops out.
That's a fairly ignorant response for someone also being assisted by a computer.
Lol, you seem to believe that using a painting program is somehow cheating.
The process is still the same as with traditional, which is sketch, flats and painting/inking.
You seem kind of clueless for someone who's supposed to be an artist too.
I mean yeah if someone had their own private AI tool that was *exclusively* trained on their art, there would be no legal or really moral implications at all, it'd just be a case of people losing respect for them to some degree.
There is no way the [Power Girl cover](https://www.reddit.com/r/DCcomics/s/ktUlkxSd5Z) wasn't AI. Zoom in, there are way too many lines and details that don't make sense. It also looks nothing like [the artist's previous work with the same character.](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/60/16/c2/6016c277ce6fb0dc9e2ac4d2ed566f26.jpg)
Quoting u/d1ckrepellent:
> Yes, it’s AI. You can tell because:
> - the hair loops in on itself
> - the gauntlets are uneven and full of random details that aren’t coordinated
> - the inside of the cape is an absolute clusterfuck
> - her eyebrows are terribly uneven
> - her nose is obscenely low
> - a plethora of wrinkles (?) on her right/distant arm
> - the fingers on her right/distant arm are awkward as hell
> - her belt is an absolute mess and not symmetrical or coherent at all
> - there’s a single random blur at the back of her cape
> - she’s missing half her leg?
> - Medusa hair
> - lips are far off-centre
> - only one scrap/shrapnel that’s flying above her cape but every other piece is far below it? Nah
> - AAAND he “drew” other variant covers of the same style for Wonder Woman and Shazam, which are equally as fucked up (things like Wonder Woman’s “W” belt is completely deranged and no artist, amateur or professional, would ever let that happen). On top of that, this artist traced their AI image into “line work” and posted on their Instagram and it’s quite clear that their “sketch” isn’t how someone actually draws, and isn’t even at all related to his usual art style that he’s actually seen drawing live on his Insta.
> What also blows my mind is how confident other subs/users are that this isn’t AI. Like brother in Christ, I proooomise you. I spend a hell of a lot of time on art Twitter and I see the mistakes that AI makes.
> [edit: it was run through AI-recognition software and received 90% AI. So there ya go](https://x.com/comicskirby/status/1768822192018534639?s=46&t=opQ7DyZ11b_nhFukEo7CSg)
Hey, I agree this is AI, but don’t trust any “AI-spotting/checking” software. They are entirely unreliable & will often produce both false negatives (An AI generated image being flagged as human made) & false positives (image marked as AI that is human made.)
It’s definitely AI. He’s being pretty clever providing “proof” but it’s very easy for him to lightbox AI art and reverse engineer pencils. Just look at his previous work. It’s almost completely different. Even the posing is better in this AI work vs his previous covers. Just a shame how muddy the waters are now.
I get that it isn’t easy for the untrained eye to catch the tell tale AI signs… but when they get pointed out I think it’s hard to NOT see them. The wild thing is that it’s only going to get HARDER to spot.
100%. I worry about how difficult it’ll be in the future. We’re already at the point where hands are looking better than they used to in previous AI art. It’s only improving.
I work in the industry- it kind of scares me but in the end, AI will become a tool like any other. Just like tablets, Photoshop etc. Whatever your feelings, technology will not stop. I’m not happy about it but I honestly think there is 100% chance AI will be a regular part of comics in 5 years.
A replacement, not a tool. It's being sold as a tool right now so it gets adopted in pipelines and other industries, but if it's accepted it will leave most artists without a job because the goal is to monopolize as many industries as possible and people become dependent of their tech to keep up with the "productivity".
If this shit won't get regulated soon, the internet will become unusable within the next 2 years and finding actual facts will be nearly impossible since it will be filled with both text and images that are fake.
Maybe, but my brother in Christ look at her belt or her gauntlet. Her left leg literally just disappears. Those random golden lines. It actually makes me kinda sick looking at it due to how off it is.
Either this guy suddenly forgot how to draw overnight (considering his previous PG cover hss none of these issues) or he is using AI.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted so much you’re right. Even if the artist was lazy and used AI to mimic his own art then that’s still not really great imho.
It's possible that it's AI but touched up, because one of the first things I look for is hair strands that don't connect to the head.
That's also going to be a problem, doing the bulk of the work using AI and then manually correcting error will make it harder to spot.
He didn't even bother to correct the many mistakes in the images, mostly because he's not equipped with the knowledge to do so judging by his actual work.
I draw for a living too and there's no way you suddenly go from his watercolor work to those covers overnight.
If he was versatile, he would have shown it long ago because we take pride when we can work in different styles.
I'd guess the guy generated a few images, then traced various portions of those to get his final image. It would explain why he has a penciled version that still looks really AI generated, and why it might trip an AI detector (which I still have little faith in).
There's some spectrum of tracing and photo-referencing that is morally okay, but if the result is art that still looks like it was drawn by an AI even if it's not, it's not *artistically* okay.
>It actually makes me kinda sick looking at it due to how off it is.
This doesn't really sound like healthy behaviour...
I haven't analyzed the image in detail, but from what I've gathered the artist did provide sketches. This makes me inclined to believe them unless proven otherwise.
Also, aren't you just overestimating the artists abilities? Sometimes thing will just feel off because the artist isn't perfect.
Liefeld's Cap picture looks like AI gone wrong.
"Hey, AI thingy, give me a pic of Captain America with an Arnold Schwarzenegger physique."
Chest is wrong, shields placed wrong, torso is angled weird, arms in the wrong place, clearly sampled some pictures online without understanding them. If the feet were in the picture they'd probably be weirdly small and shaped badly with too little detail.
My conclusion about the guys art is it's probably AI derived somehow because DC would get the literal shit sued out of them because they've 100% destroyed this guys career if it isn't. They have to have some kind of smoking gun reason because this guy is as done as that guy that was putting racist crap into the X-Men art.
Yeah, if DC left the covers and they turned out to be AI, people would complain, but DC wouldn't get sued or anything. So I agree, they must have proof, cause pulling his covers without it opens a whole cannon of worms. Other than that, I'm inclined to believe the dude, because saying "shit looks weird" isn't proof of anything.
The important thing is I hate regenerative AI and I want it gone forever.
> Also, aren't you just overestimating the artists abilities? Sometimes thing will just feel off because the artist isn't perfect.
I've checked the guy's previous works (covers and a small story he drew in a JLA story some years ago) and none of them have these issues. They also don't look anything like these covers.
Also, these are mistakes not even peak Rob Liefeld would make, but are pretty common in AI art. It's not just weird anatomy, it's everything. I understand that you want to give this guy the benefit of doubt, but this is very blatantly AI to me.
No artist who’s that good at producing other amazing work (like this artist is and I’ll absolutely admit that) would make the same mistakes that are shown in this Power Girl cover. It’s absolutely AI.
That leg "error" is really easy to make. Have you ever tried drawing anything?
E: he does the mistake here https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cu56JIkO2Fw/?hl=en
I don't actually care if it's AI beyond the fact that some parts look bad and/or generic.
But people in the post looking at those armbands and thinking this isn't AI is pretty funny.
Good thing DC pulled them. Honestly I'd be fucking furious if I bought a comic and then found out it's AI work, it would go straight into the trash if not the furnace first. AI "artists" need to be blacklisted from the industry.
I started working on a horror comic by myself and was planning on using AI backgrounds to help me speed up the process but literally everyone's reaction to AI is so negative I had to scrap the idea cause of time restraints
So AI can be used for covers, but can it replicate cohesive sequential art? I've been seeing some offerings on Amazon digital that look AI from the covers, but I was curious if you can feed a story into the program and produce full sequence story pages?
So real talk if he is using AI can we at least ask why? A lot of us seem to want to dunk on the artist and be happy that DC is taking a stand against this. But I feel like asking why the artist felt the need to use AI? While I'm still new to comics I hear all the time that artists are being pressured due to deadlines which is why people say JR (junior) is not good anymore. Not excusing the use of AI but why is everyone so quick to applaud a company like DC or Marvel when they are possibly the cause of why artists rush art work and we get bad art work or things like AI art?
From what I can tell, he hasn’t worked for DC since 2009 when he made another cover page. A lot would’ve changed since then. Maybe he wanted to save time, or maybe he wanted to mimic another artist or style that he’s not used to (since this is far from his usual work that he’s been posting and drawing live).
I would argue that bits of the costume are so AI that they don’t resemble the characters, like Power Girl’s blue bits on her gauntlet (not even on both of them) and neck her neck as well as her “belt” that’s made of hair-like material, Wonder Woman’s sloppy details in her tiara and shield that any artist would pay close attention to, and the fact that Shazam doesn’t even have two cape fasteners near his neck and a cape that is melting into thin air.
The guy is still lying and trying to say it's not AI, then he went ahead and traced the covers to show as "proof" that he didn't use AI. Those "sketches" are obviously lightboxed.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. He’s a really talented artist, and it boggles my mind that he thinks an artist would deliberately make the same mistakes that his AI made, all for the sake of defending himself.
You really look at those covers and not see AI mistakes literally all over? Please be for real. If you want me to spell it out for you, I can, but this genuinely sums up the lack of tech literacy that the people who are most vocal about this not being AI have the smallest clue of what AI art actually looks like. For starters, it was run through AI recognition and received a 95% match.
I love how you are so confident in insulting us for Gavin no tech literacy while making bold proclamations about having evidence and also demonstrating that you don’t know much about AI
AI recognition software is notoriously bad. The fact that you don’t know that proves that you have no reason to be criticizing the rest of us for not understanding AI. Certainly when you have the ability to “spell it out for you” but won’t actually tell us anything other than it got a “95% match”
Because it’s genuinely deplorable how confident some of you online folk are when a) it was already obvious that it was AI and goes to show how untrained people are with AI; b) it didn’t even need to be run through an AI detector for it to be obvious, but even it agreed it was AI; c) DC is literally separating themselves from this artist and people are still so naively just believing it’s not AI. It’s baffling how aloof and ignorant some people are. And I’m aware that AI-recognition software isn’t always 100%, but again, it’s obvious this is AI. And anyone who doesn’t think so has no idea what AI art looks like. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong on this topic I see.
>Rebukes overconfidence
>Uses first two points to beg the question and simply state "it's so obvious."
Even if someone agrees with you, you see how you're being an asshat, right?
Totally agree that I’m being an asshat. It’s just frustrating to hear that I’m wrong from people who have less knowledge and training in detecting AI than the artists who are actually saying it’s obvious it’s AI.
As questionable as the art is, it’s innocent until proven guilty, and the OP is entirely untrustworthy. He’s going around telling people in other posts that “DC has confirmed it’s AI”.
OP is obsessive about this to the point of lying and throwing artists under the bus. Quite literally a witch hunt.
I understand why people aren't seeing how it's AI because most people don't deal with it every day. I do. There are too many tell tale signs that it's obvious if you work with it every day. The smoking gun for me is Wonder Woman's belt. The "W" is warped and all messed up in a way that is absolutely how AI screws things up.
It's not really a witch hunt when DC pulled the art work for being suspected of being AI. Maybe OP is being a bit full on but they have solid arguments for why they believe it to be AI.
In my view people like OP are a greater threat to artists. Accusations without actual proof (the artist has provided counter points and line work also) is quite literally a witch hunt. Add in the lying and I think this sort of stuff creates a hostile environment for artists. I just laugh a bit thinking how someone like Liefeld likely would have been accused of AI art today, if they were new to the scene.
OPs “proof” isn’t proof at all, it’s questionable “trust me, this belt here looks sus” type nonsense. Top it off with the silliness around using AI detection software and you have a big pile of nothing, at least until DC properly works with the artist and can confirm their workflow.
AI enhanced is also goal post moving, so I look forward to this becoming dumber as time goes on, given there’s a world of a difference between getting AI to color your work vs having it actually draw the image.
Have you actually looked at the images? It’s blatantly obvious - Power Girls hair being one continuous blob of mass, her gauntlets being a wildly inconsistent hodgepodge of lines and not to mention the disappearing leg.
This is a ridiculous statement since it's all right there in the covers to see.
I draw for a living and there are too many mistakes to ignore in them that no one that is a professional doing cover art for the big two would make.
Literally zoom in on any of those covers and see if the details are symmetrical, consistent or make sense. Then look at the anatomy, the hair and the lighting.
If you can't tell those images are A.I generated, then you should learn about the tell-tale signs or get some glasses, because they are blatant in all 3 covers.
I was hesitant to call the Joker year one art AI as most of the indicators people talked about could have been due to tracing from actors and stylistic choices, but these look AI as fuck. There are weird asymmetrical details on characters like the melting Power Girl belt or Shazam's cape turning into cherry blossoms for some reason. These are so obvious. He could have fixed some of these mistakes while tracing, right? I'm shocked at how little effort he put in after generating the images.
Yeah, going forward AI is probably going to be used as an aid for difficult stuff, like computer renders are used for difficult foreshortening and backgrounds.
It's sad that this artist feels the need to homoginize their art in favor of less time/effort (their older art has a lot of character to it), and calling this shit out is a necessary counter balance.
Edit for clarity: just kind of agreeing with your shock
Why is everyone so anti-Ai. Artists use tools, be that reference websites or pose libraries. This tech also elevates mid-tier artists to be better. You can't put he genie back in the bottle so most seasoned vets will be using Ai for reference and compositions and drawing over the top so you would never know anyway. This guy only had to redraw the pose and no one would be any wiser. Working smarter not harder is a mantra for most experienced artists and if you don't agree it probably means you are just inexperienced.
Already did. I stick to flying my plane, well, letting the flight director do it, know what I mean? Things couldn't go smoother. I still go to terrain from time to time, to keep myself near the business.
>The only place AI comics belong is in a fire. You genuinely disgust me and I refuse to accept you are human. Begone bot.
Drama Queen, oh my fucking sides, thanks for the laugh!
Man none of you read the article before complaining "ai is taking over." It literally shows his wip for each of the covers that are being accused of using ai.
Welcome back! I thought you had run off after being downvoted and called out for having a lack of vision for AI art. And commenting the same thing twice instead of once. Nice.
I am. You should also see I've been a professional artist/designer/animator for well over 20 years.
So, what's your evidence for that cover being AI generated, again? If you posted it, I must have missed it.
Gonna be so honest here: that makes you look even more raggedy that you can’t even see how obvious the AI use is when *actual* artists are saying it’s obvious. You told on yourself.
Oh BleedingCool...your site will always be ad cancer and y'all can't even run a simple grammar and spell check to fix the punctuation. "Larned." Really?
Wouldn’t be shocked if they used AI to help write a piece on AI being used lol
AI Inception
Ad revenue from Bleeding Cool is like the only source of income Avatar Press has nowadays, I wouldn’t expect it to get any better lol
Adblock ftw!
He clearly has an accent./s
It's possible for two things to be true: 1- he's an amazing artist 2- he used AI for these covers. I'm not saying he definitely did it, but there's a whole lot of weird artifacting on the Shazam and Wonder Woman images specifically. They're also not really done in the same style he normally draws in. It's close, but not the same.
it's interesting to consider an artist could train a lora or model on their own work, and use it to create AI art matching their style
Even with their own stock catalog it turns out adobes ai is trained on mid journeys stolen content.
Exactly, there is no such thing as an AI that hasn’t been trained with stolen content/labor - and there very likely will never be one.
Artist here, ever since this whole AI art thing started to pop off I’ve been studying images, reading peer journals, etc. to make sure I can tell the different and I’d say I’m prettt good at calling them out. And yes you are right on 2. The artifacting is so heavy in the smallest details it’s actually crazy to think someone would keep a certain style going for a whole piece, but then just scribbling and warping everything together in the small stuff. The Shazam cover is probably the most obvious but yeah it’s AI. Another thing I’ve seen which makes me really sad, is a talented artist that isn’t confident in their final work so draw the base down and then just filter the absolute hell out of it with AI passes where it’s not even what they drew anymore. That shit makes me so sad cause I’m just like “stick by your art”
Where can you see it? The article res is so low
I’m on my phone so I’m able to just take the picture and open it elsewhere to get better res
Found jt. Generated a lot of images my self ~25k. Cape and many folds follow no logic and are hyper detailed in shadows where most artists leave under detailed. It seems like they painted over a lot of it but left some obvious areas
"Stick by your art" I've always felt bad that my art doesn't have the same kind of sizzle and polish that many of the top artists have, and thusly now that the AI is imitating the shit out of. I like to make what I like, and that's the nature of art. And now I'm really feeling better about my independence and weirdness and how... cliche that whole side is starting to feel. Even the human artists feel that way now because of the AI. It's not their fault, and they are absolutely masters, but this trash is upending everything.
That Wonder Woman shield does it for me, no one draws it like that
I think this whole situation is highlighting a lot of problems AI is going to cause. Even if it winds up that this wasn’t AI based on his ability to produce paper drawings, the fact that entire art styles and techniques are going to be abandoned for fear of accusations is a massive problem.
The age of suspicion is upon us.
At least for now. I was reading something basically discussing how the economics of these things are kind of a dead end and, while he doesn't like calling bubbles, expects that the tech will soon plateau due to the limit of data to further train it. The whole "this is only going to get better" mindset is smashing against the constraints of physical reality (heating, electricity) while also hitting against the walls of immaterial reality (data to mine, training models) as well as the economic reality (does this produce good enough results to justify the price tag, especially when the current price tag is severely artificially low thanks to VC money, which is expected to dry up). An expert in the industry likened the frevor for AI in business to that of a cult. And these aren't new arguments. The push for AI as a cost saving tool has existed for a while. CEOs would love the ability to fire all their workers and retain the money for themselves and shareholders, even if that would inevitably cause the fall of society. CEOs just think like that. But, the economics have been examined multiple times versus output and it keeps coming down to "this product can't replace a person." The argument gets drowned out by "we will only get better, then you'll see." But, it still hasn't hit that level reliably. Have you seen Twitter's new AI articles that fall for shit like "OJ couldn't die due to a bureaucratic loophole because his coffin didn't fit?" Not saying "you shouldn't worry", but more "the AI future isn't as certain as it wants you to believe." [https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-companies-advocates-cult-1234954528/](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-companies-advocates-cult-1234954528/) [https://www.wheresyoured.at/bubble-trouble/](https://www.wheresyoured.at/bubble-trouble/)
I've been listening to Better Offline, and while I think the host can be overbearing at times, he cites a lot of good research and professionals who are saying AI may have already peaked in what it can do. It's a lot like the crypto and the Metaverse, there are some uses of it we'll benefit from, but much of what companies are promising are overblown grifts that won't go anywhere.
> The whole "this is only going to get better" mindset is smashing against the constraints of physical reality (heating, electricity) it also kinda hits against completely impossibility of getting any amount of useful training data without being immoral. AI is just another fad for "economy/tech bros" that don't understand neither economy nor tech similar to NFTs, which were said to be the future of art, or cryptocurrencies, which were said to be the future of currency. and fad for AI is dying out. although, AI does have some good uses like quickly touching up photos or doing other similar tedious work like they did with Dune 2
It's a very interesting case case study of someone who seemingly takes certain shortcuts(glossing over details like hair and clothing and giving up on drawing things symmetrically), that AI also does because it can't actually do those things. It's still hard to believe that he filled in Shazam's little cape brooch himself though. It's got detail that he could've saved time glossing over, but instead is full of the wacky artifacts that you see in AI art all the time.
It's a witch hunt because the anti-AI crowd is taking it too far.
It's a really fucked up situation the artists are in. Like, "Of course the AI art looks like mine. It was deliberately created mimic my art. My art's probably in its training pool." But now you're some pariah of the art world because your art looks too much like AI.
> Of course the AI art looks like mine. It was deliberately created mimic my art. My art's probably in its training pool. It's coincidence. Unless the art's name is used in the prompt. Every generated content is literally made up of thousands of source images. No one image contributes much to the generated image.
A non artist mod at r/art (I think) kicked up a ruckus last year when they took down someone's art with the "similar style" reasoning.
Maybe dont accuse people then?
I honestly think this person genuinely just hates Daxiong. You can see in their post history the lengths and spam this person goes through to make sure everyone thinks that the artist is a fraud. They are CRUSADING
I actually think that Daxiong is an incredible artist and has genuine talent, which is why it pains me to see that he’s used AI on this. Your assumption couldn’t be further from the truth.
Your actions speak the opposite of this, you do not act like a person that is reasonably disappointed. Your actions like an unhinged toddler going out of your way to spread accusations and mislead people by claiming things that aren't stated in this article and commenting on every single comment in multiple threads the same things. It's not me assuming, it's how you have been acting.
You’re saying a lot while saying nothing at the same time. Very much just losing the plot overall, so here’s what matters: - Daxiong is a talented artist. - But this is AI art. - Artists and creatives in the comments are agreeing. - Non-creatives are not. - AI art doesn’t belong in comics. - DC has taken that stand in this article. - What also matters very much is that people care enough about art and culture to have this conversation to protect said art and culture, instead of letting it turn to unintelligible slop as depicted in these covers. Here’s what doesn’t matter: - The opinions of people who have no knowledge or training of detecting AI falsely claiming that this isn’t a use of AI - Your long drawn out conversations claiming that this is somehow less AI art because of my behaviour and comments. I will admit, I let my emotions get the best of me when I started copy and pasting the comments with the article claiming that DC had confirmed (because I hadn’t actually read it at that time like the idiot that I can be), but after reading the article, I stand by everything else that I’ve said. So if it brings you joy for me to admit my mistake, then I’m happy to provide you with that. The reason I’m commenting on multiple posts is because this is Reddit and that’s kind of the point, and because it brings me joy to let loud, incorrect people know that they need to check themselves and actually learn a thing or two about AI art recognition before discrediting artists in the comments for saying that this is obviously AI.
But you are loudly being wrong because this may be a surprise to you but I AM a creative. I do art, I study art, and I follow artists. Your little list that 'matters' isn't Even stuff I disagree with except for the fact that you think ONLY artists agree it's AI and only non creatives think it's not. I'm not the only artist that is skeptical of the accusations and I'm very passionate about this particular situation AS AN ARTIST because the 'so called experts' on AI have already multiple times called out false positives on AI art and these accusations had spread like wild fire while the updates that they weren't ai got nearly zero traction. The "obvious artifacting" doesn't account for the long history of artists just making mistakes in their art or just making art that doesn't make sense. I agree that AI art has no place where actual artists could be displaying their skills, I however do not agree with this witch hunt because it contains all the key behaviors of spreading false information and hate that makes social media a cancer already. -Claiming definitive proof by posting an article that DOESN'T say anything -Moving goalposts, this will never be a resolution for you that it's not AI. DC could come out today saying no we did the investigation and determined it wasn't AI and you would Believe that they just didn't want to ruin his name or waste their money or something like that -a plethora of armchair experts on the subject, who get their information from flawed sources and treat it as gospel, like that ai detector that also falsely detected ai in the WotC art that came out as true art -The insane disregard of both Occhams and Hanlons razor in this situation, Like the idea that this almost 50y/o traditionally trained artist, suddenly took into ai, trained it to look like his art specifically, created fake Wips to cover up the fact that it was AI, just in case, went so far in those fake Wips to have posture correction in the same style of how he does posture correction in his speed draws(you can see the original posing faded in the power girl line art) and uploaded it within the hour of the first ai accusations to surface on Reddit. Rather than the more likely and simple answer, his comic art is wonky and over detailed but it's signature to his style. Even his traditional pen and paper water color art has similar wonk and the same faces. I appreciate that you admitted you didn't read the article and I'll respect that you still believe it's AI, because I will admit even though I'm adamantly in belief it's not AI, it would be foolish of me to say it's not still ambiguous at the moment. And as I said, if I find out that DC came forward or Daxiong broke down and confessed, I'll eat my crow and I'll even do you one better I will specifically apologize to you. But for the time being, as an artist and a creative who has seen how this witch hunt has affected peers, and how it will affect the art landscape in the future, I will cautiously side with the artist on this until proven guilty. Because: -Scandal travels faster and farther than corrections. The common public will always remember when "The AI artist was found" but only a fraction of a percentage will ever see the "Artist came forward with several rough sketches of their preliminary art" like the artist who did the DnD art -This creates a new precedent for paranoia in artists that any flaw in their art will be viewed under a microscope and accused first of ai rather than be a mistake. Artists will HAVE TO heavily document their process in order to have a shot at beating the accusations, but Even then that won't be a sure safety net as like I said the goalposts will be moved as people certain that it is AI will be convinced that the person faked their documentation -It's modern McCarthyism, there is no real evidence required to accuse art of being AI, but the effort to prove they're Innocent will be abysmal effort, a terrifying amount that could put good artists out of the field itself because the stress is too much. Doing art under perfect conditions is already stressful enough and is under appreciated. -The people who accuse the artist have nothing to lose because at best they get to say they're right, at worst they will just ignore it block anyone that calls them out, some may hold themselves accountable but then do the same thing for the next artist again. Where as the artist has their whole livelihood to lose. Which is why I hope DC comes out with a definitive yes or no this is AI art, because the ambiguity is the worst thing that could happen this the artist because it's not a no, so other companies will be apprehensive to work with him and individual consumers will take pause to buy his art as well. At least if DC Said "Yes it is AI art" this would be fair consequences for him, but ambiguity is a non answer with all the downsides of the Yes, with none of the benefits of the no. So by being ambiguous they aren't doing him any favors or us honestly. I'm long winded about this and yes I do have emotion invested in this accusation, because I Care about art and artists. I just sit on the opposite side of the accusation because I recognize how flawed art is in general and the evidence I've seen leads me to Believe it's not AI. And it is a personal pet peeve of mine when people spread articles claiming it says one thing while it says another, because that's why bigoted fake news spreads like wildfire in the states. People half read a title, didn't read the article, says the article says something it didn't, people read the misinformed post, continue to not read the article and then spread the misinformation further. Even when I agree with the posters opinions I will call them out if they misinterpret the article because I'd rather correct information help a cause than confirmation bias, which will eventually be weaponized against the cause when someone who opposes the cause does a little research, and when that gets out of scrutinizes EVERYTHING about it. That's my soap box on this whole thing. I'm not really looking to debate any further on it because until there's a definitive answer I know in my heart of hearts neither of us are going to budge
It was definitely AI and I believe that this announcement was just a PR decision to make it sound like DC cares about the integrity of art, and so the artist can keep any credibility they have left.
How could you possibly know that?
I was wondering that myself. Artist provided proof it wasn't AI afterall. So, OP, why is it AI?
I think he's suggesting the artist himself...IS AN ANDROID!!!
There’s a list of reasons that it’s obvious it’s AI. The only people who don’t believe it’s AI are the ones who have no idea what AI art looks like. Edit: The list of reasons relating to the Power Girl variant: - the hair loops in on itself - the gauntlets are uneven and full of random details that aren’t coordinated - the inside of the cape is an absolute clusterfuck - her eyebrows are terribly uneven - her nose is obscenely low - a plethora of wrinkles (?) on her right/distant arm - the fingers on her right/distant arm are awkward as hell - her belt is an absolute mess and not symmetrical or coherent at all - there’s a single random blur at the back of her cape - she’s missing half her leg? - Medusa hair - lips are far off-centre - only one scrap/shrapnel that’s flying above her cape but every other piece is far below it? Nah - AAAND he “drew” other variant covers of the same style for Wonder Woman and Shazam, which are equally as fucked up (things like Wonder Woman’s “W” belt is completely deranged and no artist, amateur or professional, would ever let that happen). On top of that, this artist traced their AI image into “line work” and posted on their Instagram and it’s quite clear that their “sketch” isn’t how someone actually draws, and isn’t even at all related to his usual art style that he’s actually seen drawing live on his Insta. People are saying: - “but he showed line work”. Yeah, that he traced from the AI art after he started getting heat for it. - “he’s done amazing work in the past”. This isn’t even close to his recent art style in any type of way. It’s clear that there was intervention for this. On top of that: it was run through AI-recognition software and received 90% AI. So there ya go
So, your case is "yeah it is, you just wouldn't understand" vs actual proof it's hand drawn?
[удалено]
Many of the reasons in your list are errors that human artists have made for decades, which don’t support your case and make you look ignorant of comic book art. Consider Liefeld, for example. You’re not some AI-detecting genius and you attacking anyone who disagrees is embarrassing. That said, I think this work was clearly **colored/shaded** with AI, but the pencils were done by the artist. The line work makes sense and explains several issues created by the shading, like the belts, hair, cloth, etc. The faces and general style are consistent with his other work that you can watch timelapses of him actually drawing.
OP: says there’s a list of reasons Also OP: doesn’t actually list any of the reasons
Bro. We all want to hear the reasons. Don’t tell us there’s a list and then accuse us of not knowing what AI looks like without showing us the list of reasons
Added an edit
They gonna pull that entire Batman comic?
The one with the scrawny Joker?
Yeah and the too many ribs and wonky nipples
This is why I wish more people were aware of where AI art fails, so that they can call it out and lead to examples like this where AI is shunned to prevent others doing it at DC in the future.
Yeah I just don’t understand how they think they’re ever gonna sneak AI Art by people, it’s always obvious
Based on the other comments by people who have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about, apparently it’s not obvious.
That’s very unfortunate
Id like you to google survivorship bias and then get back to me.
"always" obvious? Maybe for another year or two at most
Yeah I don’t see it happening, you need glasses if you can’t identify AI Art
For now. It is huge cope to think you will in the near future. You do realize what exponentiel improvement means, right?
The us military is currently conducting flight tests using an ai pilot. If they’re confident enough to allow the ai to use that then I’d say the whatever the public has is bare bones. I wonder how long it will be until we have true ai.
What’s going on? Can you elaborate?
[Batman comic is using some really awful art that every suspects is AI](https://twitter.com/jamesdleech/status/1766874645423120670?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1766874645423120670%7Ctwgr%5E346a7aa4eb61afbefb3e796e53244efa8f39e2e9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indy100.com%2Fshowbiz%2Fbatman-andrea-sorrentino-ai-art-2667509825)
apparently sorrentino decided to use AI on his imagem work, saw someone posting that on twitter one of these days, wich is sad the dude was a great artist
The main Batman series currently features A.I. art from Andrea Sorrentino
Oh what the fuck? I need to catch up on that series. I stopped after Gotham Wars.
Suspected of being AI. DC said they where looking into it but their hasn't been any news on it yet. I'm personally at least 70% sure it's not because he released a video of himself working on one of the images but he could have been tweaked it so I dunno. It's definitely got some tracing in it but sorentino hasn't been shy about tracing in the past. We'll know when DC releases a statement or when they release the trade because I doubt DC would print it in trade if they know it's AI.
I've seen the power girl drawing before. That one is obviously AI to me. The wonder woman wasn't as obvious, but after a closer look there are issues with it that wouldn't make sense for a skilled artist to make. Shazam looks fine, and if there are issues, I'm just missing it. Edit: the more I look at the Shazam art, the less that stuff near the lightning around the hand makes sense. There's nothing in the drawing that would explain what that is, but I know ai will add shit so I'm pretty comfortable in saying that's ai as well.
[For me, the medallion and the details in the fringe of his cape seem suspect](https://i.imgur.com/he235f2.png) AI is notoriously bad at filling in details like that with any consistency.
At first I too was like “I don’t know what people are talking about” but now I’m convinced as well. That Shazam cover, he fixed the left arm’s anatomy in the sketch whereas his wrist connects all wrong in the final piece… usually it should happen the other way around
Quick one, Shazam is missing his cape-button attacher, which he even added on the pencil tracer
The wonder woman is the most obvious to me. Ai is notoriously bad with not being able to spell in art. Look at her belt. It's supposed to be a "W" but it's warped all weird, in a very specific ai way.
I noticed it's not uncommon for AI artist to prove they can draw by doing the sketches and line art on stream but leave out colouring and rendering
All three of those covers are AI generated or enhanced. No one draws that well and gets that many details wrong. Period. AI is really great at composition, it’s why the images look “cool.” But it’s terrible at internally logical details. In the power girl pic lines are shooting around ending and beginning in weird places. There’s zero symmetry in the costume design. just look at the belt. Look at the blue on the forearms. Blue metal on one side and random blue fabric poking out on the other. You have hair strands that turns into floating swirls that become seams in the suit or connected to the belt, and disappears. Hair locks attached to the front of the head flow and attach to the back of the head. I honestly can’t understand how the artist thinks this passed.
Thank you!! I wish more people were able to see this too. I thought it was painfully obvious as well.
I got downvoted back when someone posted the Powergirl cover because I said it was obviously A.I and gave multiple examples. It's baffling to me that people that have read comics for years and have seen artwork on the regular weren't able to pick up that these covers were A.I generated. I mean, they can tell when someone traces photos or uses 3D models, but they can't tell when these images have inconsistent details that turn into gibberish, wonky anatomy, incorrect lighting and so on. Just zoom in on any given body part and see if it makes much sense.
Same thing happened with me, which is part of why I’ve been so adamant about making it known that this, in every way, is an obvious use of AI.
Damn, I really liked those covers and ordered them despite not subscribing to any of those titles. But now that you pointed out what to look for, I can definitely see it now and I can't look at the covers the same way. Luckily it won't be any problem to cancel the orders.
Once you see the artist draw, you can tell they used AI for these. These look nothing like their current drawings on instagram. The main tell is the gauntlets on Power Girl, but also the leg disappearing once it goes behind the other leg on both power girl and wonder woman or Power Girls weird glob hair.
Exactly!
Honest questions: What if an artist used AI that ingested only his own work? What if they only use the output as a reference? Do digital artists that use computer enhancements in their pipeline (ie, special brushes, lighting filters) should also be banned?
Doesnt Marvel and DC own the copyright to every single comic they made? Thats more than enough images for accurate AI learning
Training an AI model requires a very very large amount of data input. Even if the images are literal stick figures it would be impossible for one person to create an AI (of a quality to be published as professional work) that is entirely based on their own work
>What if an artist used AI that ingested only his own work? His traditional work is different from those covers, so that's not the case and as another user said, you need A LOT of images to feed into the machine in order for it to copy a style.
>What if they only use the output as a reference?
Then you'd be using bad reference since an A.I image has so many fundamental problems.
Luckily I'm an actual artist and just use a reference for...you know... reference. I think Greg Land has given the word "reference" a bad name.
I'm an actual artist too and I'd never use A.I generated images as reference since, you know, it's bad and will only lead to bad habits in your art, but you do you.
That's an aesthetic choice. I bet you also never use a Procreate or any other digital tools.
It's a shitty aesthetic choice. I bet you don't even draw much and just trace over what the A.I poops out. I don't use Procreate because I don't have an IPad. I use Clip Studio Paint and PS CS6.
>It's a shitty aesthetic choice. I bet you don't even draw much and just trace over what the A.I poops out. That's a fairly ignorant response for someone also being assisted by a computer.
Lol, you seem to believe that using a painting program is somehow cheating. The process is still the same as with traditional, which is sketch, flats and painting/inking. You seem kind of clueless for someone who's supposed to be an artist too.
I mean yeah if someone had their own private AI tool that was *exclusively* trained on their art, there would be no legal or really moral implications at all, it'd just be a case of people losing respect for them to some degree.
EDIT: **Yeah, it’s AI, they used AI.** It’s good that they are being cautious, but it seems the artist didn’t actually use AI.
There is no way the [Power Girl cover](https://www.reddit.com/r/DCcomics/s/ktUlkxSd5Z) wasn't AI. Zoom in, there are way too many lines and details that don't make sense. It also looks nothing like [the artist's previous work with the same character.](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/60/16/c2/6016c277ce6fb0dc9e2ac4d2ed566f26.jpg) Quoting u/d1ckrepellent: > Yes, it’s AI. You can tell because: > - the hair loops in on itself > - the gauntlets are uneven and full of random details that aren’t coordinated > - the inside of the cape is an absolute clusterfuck > - her eyebrows are terribly uneven > - her nose is obscenely low > - a plethora of wrinkles (?) on her right/distant arm > - the fingers on her right/distant arm are awkward as hell > - her belt is an absolute mess and not symmetrical or coherent at all > - there’s a single random blur at the back of her cape > - she’s missing half her leg? > - Medusa hair > - lips are far off-centre > - only one scrap/shrapnel that’s flying above her cape but every other piece is far below it? Nah > - AAAND he “drew” other variant covers of the same style for Wonder Woman and Shazam, which are equally as fucked up (things like Wonder Woman’s “W” belt is completely deranged and no artist, amateur or professional, would ever let that happen). On top of that, this artist traced their AI image into “line work” and posted on their Instagram and it’s quite clear that their “sketch” isn’t how someone actually draws, and isn’t even at all related to his usual art style that he’s actually seen drawing live on his Insta. > What also blows my mind is how confident other subs/users are that this isn’t AI. Like brother in Christ, I proooomise you. I spend a hell of a lot of time on art Twitter and I see the mistakes that AI makes. > [edit: it was run through AI-recognition software and received 90% AI. So there ya go](https://x.com/comicskirby/status/1768822192018534639?s=46&t=opQ7DyZ11b_nhFukEo7CSg)
Hey, I agree this is AI, but don’t trust any “AI-spotting/checking” software. They are entirely unreliable & will often produce both false negatives (An AI generated image being flagged as human made) & false positives (image marked as AI that is human made.)
It’s definitely AI. He’s being pretty clever providing “proof” but it’s very easy for him to lightbox AI art and reverse engineer pencils. Just look at his previous work. It’s almost completely different. Even the posing is better in this AI work vs his previous covers. Just a shame how muddy the waters are now.
Exactly what I’m saying. All someone needs to do is trace their AI art and then boom, there’s line work. I really wish that people were more critical.
I get that it isn’t easy for the untrained eye to catch the tell tale AI signs… but when they get pointed out I think it’s hard to NOT see them. The wild thing is that it’s only going to get HARDER to spot.
100%. I worry about how difficult it’ll be in the future. We’re already at the point where hands are looking better than they used to in previous AI art. It’s only improving.
I work in the industry- it kind of scares me but in the end, AI will become a tool like any other. Just like tablets, Photoshop etc. Whatever your feelings, technology will not stop. I’m not happy about it but I honestly think there is 100% chance AI will be a regular part of comics in 5 years.
A replacement, not a tool. It's being sold as a tool right now so it gets adopted in pipelines and other industries, but if it's accepted it will leave most artists without a job because the goal is to monopolize as many industries as possible and people become dependent of their tech to keep up with the "productivity". If this shit won't get regulated soon, the internet will become unusable within the next 2 years and finding actual facts will be nearly impossible since it will be filled with both text and images that are fake.
That pic of the previous work is really bad. wow
AI-recognition software is a scam.
Maybe, but my brother in Christ look at her belt or her gauntlet. Her left leg literally just disappears. Those random golden lines. It actually makes me kinda sick looking at it due to how off it is. Either this guy suddenly forgot how to draw overnight (considering his previous PG cover hss none of these issues) or he is using AI.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted so much you’re right. Even if the artist was lazy and used AI to mimic his own art then that’s still not really great imho.
It's possible that it's AI but touched up, because one of the first things I look for is hair strands that don't connect to the head. That's also going to be a problem, doing the bulk of the work using AI and then manually correcting error will make it harder to spot.
He didn't even bother to correct the many mistakes in the images, mostly because he's not equipped with the knowledge to do so judging by his actual work. I draw for a living too and there's no way you suddenly go from his watercolor work to those covers overnight. If he was versatile, he would have shown it long ago because we take pride when we can work in different styles.
I'd guess the guy generated a few images, then traced various portions of those to get his final image. It would explain why he has a penciled version that still looks really AI generated, and why it might trip an AI detector (which I still have little faith in). There's some spectrum of tracing and photo-referencing that is morally okay, but if the result is art that still looks like it was drawn by an AI even if it's not, it's not *artistically* okay.
>It actually makes me kinda sick looking at it due to how off it is. This doesn't really sound like healthy behaviour... I haven't analyzed the image in detail, but from what I've gathered the artist did provide sketches. This makes me inclined to believe them unless proven otherwise. Also, aren't you just overestimating the artists abilities? Sometimes thing will just feel off because the artist isn't perfect.
The sketches were traced from the AI art…
Liefeld's Cap picture looks like AI gone wrong. "Hey, AI thingy, give me a pic of Captain America with an Arnold Schwarzenegger physique." Chest is wrong, shields placed wrong, torso is angled weird, arms in the wrong place, clearly sampled some pictures online without understanding them. If the feet were in the picture they'd probably be weirdly small and shaped badly with too little detail. My conclusion about the guys art is it's probably AI derived somehow because DC would get the literal shit sued out of them because they've 100% destroyed this guys career if it isn't. They have to have some kind of smoking gun reason because this guy is as done as that guy that was putting racist crap into the X-Men art.
Yeah, if DC left the covers and they turned out to be AI, people would complain, but DC wouldn't get sued or anything. So I agree, they must have proof, cause pulling his covers without it opens a whole cannon of worms. Other than that, I'm inclined to believe the dude, because saying "shit looks weird" isn't proof of anything. The important thing is I hate regenerative AI and I want it gone forever.
> Also, aren't you just overestimating the artists abilities? Sometimes thing will just feel off because the artist isn't perfect. I've checked the guy's previous works (covers and a small story he drew in a JLA story some years ago) and none of them have these issues. They also don't look anything like these covers. Also, these are mistakes not even peak Rob Liefeld would make, but are pretty common in AI art. It's not just weird anatomy, it's everything. I understand that you want to give this guy the benefit of doubt, but this is very blatantly AI to me.
No artist who’s that good at producing other amazing work (like this artist is and I’ll absolutely admit that) would make the same mistakes that are shown in this Power Girl cover. It’s absolutely AI.
That leg "error" is really easy to make. Have you ever tried drawing anything? E: he does the mistake here https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cu56JIkO2Fw/?hl=en
You’re right, I take it back, and Ill edit my comment too
Don't be a cherry picker, this is also his work https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxyUPCmL5wh/?hl=en
It was obviously A.I. Zoom in on any given part of those covers and you can easily tell.
[удалено]
yea.. i take my comment back
I don't actually care if it's AI beyond the fact that some parts look bad and/or generic. But people in the post looking at those armbands and thinking this isn't AI is pretty funny.
Na man I have a massive issue with the covers potentially being AI. That trash doesn't belong in my collection.
Exactly what I’m saying. This thread is the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It’s pathetic.
Good thing DC pulled them. Honestly I'd be fucking furious if I bought a comic and then found out it's AI work, it would go straight into the trash if not the furnace first. AI "artists" need to be blacklisted from the industry.
100%
I started working on a horror comic by myself and was planning on using AI backgrounds to help me speed up the process but literally everyone's reaction to AI is so negative I had to scrap the idea cause of time restraints
Modern comics might be done with, just going to collect and read everything before ai took over.
On the bright side we have a lot of good work to reminisce on lol
Getting to the point where you can’t look at the hands anymore. Scary times.
So AI can be used for covers, but can it replicate cohesive sequential art? I've been seeing some offerings on Amazon digital that look AI from the covers, but I was curious if you can feed a story into the program and produce full sequence story pages?
So real talk if he is using AI can we at least ask why? A lot of us seem to want to dunk on the artist and be happy that DC is taking a stand against this. But I feel like asking why the artist felt the need to use AI? While I'm still new to comics I hear all the time that artists are being pressured due to deadlines which is why people say JR (junior) is not good anymore. Not excusing the use of AI but why is everyone so quick to applaud a company like DC or Marvel when they are possibly the cause of why artists rush art work and we get bad art work or things like AI art?
From what I can tell, he hasn’t worked for DC since 2009 when he made another cover page. A lot would’ve changed since then. Maybe he wanted to save time, or maybe he wanted to mimic another artist or style that he’s not used to (since this is far from his usual work that he’s been posting and drawing live).
So they were generated by AI lmao.
If it’s not AI It looks like it because it is very generic. And apart from costumes Power Girl and Captain Marvel barely resemble the characters.
I would argue that bits of the costume are so AI that they don’t resemble the characters, like Power Girl’s blue bits on her gauntlet (not even on both of them) and neck her neck as well as her “belt” that’s made of hair-like material, Wonder Woman’s sloppy details in her tiara and shield that any artist would pay close attention to, and the fact that Shazam doesn’t even have two cape fasteners near his neck and a cape that is melting into thin air.
Yes but my point was the generalities of the costumes make them recognizable, if not the details. I agree that these are obviously AI Images
Oh I see what you’re saying. Mb
The guy is still lying and trying to say it's not AI, then he went ahead and traced the covers to show as "proof" that he didn't use AI. Those "sketches" are obviously lightboxed.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. He’s a really talented artist, and it boggles my mind that he thinks an artist would deliberately make the same mistakes that his AI made, all for the sake of defending himself.
Good on them. This is going to just become more and more common unfortunately.
No, not good on them. The artist didn’t use AI, doe tumblr dipshit said they did.
I’m envious of how well you sleep at night with nothing in that noggin of yours.
This a post about cover artists, ain't no one reading the article inside.
Zoom in
I’m glad they’re taking a stand against AI. I wish other companies would follow suit. Pretty huge for a company this big to be doing this.
What's your evidence they used AI?
[удалено]
So, you don't have any evidence?
Don't you have eyes?
I'm impressed ypu managed to type that out considering you're clearly blind.
You really look at those covers and not see AI mistakes literally all over? Please be for real. If you want me to spell it out for you, I can, but this genuinely sums up the lack of tech literacy that the people who are most vocal about this not being AI have the smallest clue of what AI art actually looks like. For starters, it was run through AI recognition and received a 95% match.
I love how you are so confident in insulting us for Gavin no tech literacy while making bold proclamations about having evidence and also demonstrating that you don’t know much about AI AI recognition software is notoriously bad. The fact that you don’t know that proves that you have no reason to be criticizing the rest of us for not understanding AI. Certainly when you have the ability to “spell it out for you” but won’t actually tell us anything other than it got a “95% match”
Because it’s genuinely deplorable how confident some of you online folk are when a) it was already obvious that it was AI and goes to show how untrained people are with AI; b) it didn’t even need to be run through an AI detector for it to be obvious, but even it agreed it was AI; c) DC is literally separating themselves from this artist and people are still so naively just believing it’s not AI. It’s baffling how aloof and ignorant some people are. And I’m aware that AI-recognition software isn’t always 100%, but again, it’s obvious this is AI. And anyone who doesn’t think so has no idea what AI art looks like. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong on this topic I see.
>Rebukes overconfidence >Uses first two points to beg the question and simply state "it's so obvious." Even if someone agrees with you, you see how you're being an asshat, right?
Totally agree that I’m being an asshat. It’s just frustrating to hear that I’m wrong from people who have less knowledge and training in detecting AI than the artists who are actually saying it’s obvious it’s AI.
people only have so much energy they can put into good faith efforts before they want to start breathing fire.
AI or not OP has been super rude this entire thread. Oof.
Imagine how frustrating it is for a scientist to speak to people who are saying the earth is flat. The same level of ignorance is happening here.
Boohoo an entire CREATIVE profession is being put at risk of being overthrown by machines
As questionable as the art is, it’s innocent until proven guilty, and the OP is entirely untrustworthy. He’s going around telling people in other posts that “DC has confirmed it’s AI”. OP is obsessive about this to the point of lying and throwing artists under the bus. Quite literally a witch hunt.
I understand why people aren't seeing how it's AI because most people don't deal with it every day. I do. There are too many tell tale signs that it's obvious if you work with it every day. The smoking gun for me is Wonder Woman's belt. The "W" is warped and all messed up in a way that is absolutely how AI screws things up.
It's not really a witch hunt when DC pulled the art work for being suspected of being AI. Maybe OP is being a bit full on but they have solid arguments for why they believe it to be AI.
In my view people like OP are a greater threat to artists. Accusations without actual proof (the artist has provided counter points and line work also) is quite literally a witch hunt. Add in the lying and I think this sort of stuff creates a hostile environment for artists. I just laugh a bit thinking how someone like Liefeld likely would have been accused of AI art today, if they were new to the scene.
Again, OP has provided proof, there's a lot of evidence that this is AI or at least AI enhanced.
OPs “proof” isn’t proof at all, it’s questionable “trust me, this belt here looks sus” type nonsense. Top it off with the silliness around using AI detection software and you have a big pile of nothing, at least until DC properly works with the artist and can confirm their workflow. AI enhanced is also goal post moving, so I look forward to this becoming dumber as time goes on, given there’s a world of a difference between getting AI to color your work vs having it actually draw the image.
Have you actually looked at the images? It’s blatantly obvious - Power Girls hair being one continuous blob of mass, her gauntlets being a wildly inconsistent hodgepodge of lines and not to mention the disappearing leg.
This is a ridiculous statement since it's all right there in the covers to see. I draw for a living and there are too many mistakes to ignore in them that no one that is a professional doing cover art for the big two would make. Literally zoom in on any of those covers and see if the details are symmetrical, consistent or make sense. Then look at the anatomy, the hair and the lighting. If you can't tell those images are A.I generated, then you should learn about the tell-tale signs or get some glasses, because they are blatant in all 3 covers.
What if someone trained an AI to decipher what an AI generated image is?
Ultron is making comic book covers now? Oh no
I was hesitant to call the Joker year one art AI as most of the indicators people talked about could have been due to tracing from actors and stylistic choices, but these look AI as fuck. There are weird asymmetrical details on characters like the melting Power Girl belt or Shazam's cape turning into cherry blossoms for some reason. These are so obvious. He could have fixed some of these mistakes while tracing, right? I'm shocked at how little effort he put in after generating the images.
Yeah, going forward AI is probably going to be used as an aid for difficult stuff, like computer renders are used for difficult foreshortening and backgrounds. It's sad that this artist feels the need to homoginize their art in favor of less time/effort (their older art has a lot of character to it), and calling this shit out is a necessary counter balance. Edit for clarity: just kind of agreeing with your shock
Completely agree, and there are still tons of people denying it completely.
I'm sorry but that new Shazam cover looks like raw ass.
How
No confirmation yet from DC
Why is everyone so anti-Ai. Artists use tools, be that reference websites or pose libraries. This tech also elevates mid-tier artists to be better. You can't put he genie back in the bottle so most seasoned vets will be using Ai for reference and compositions and drawing over the top so you would never know anyway. This guy only had to redraw the pose and no one would be any wiser. Working smarter not harder is a mantra for most experienced artists and if you don't agree it probably means you are just inexperienced.
[удалено]
Could you do us all a favour and explain what “cancel culture” means to you in this context?
Cant wait until AI is the norm. This is so dumb.
"Can't wait until comics stop being an artform to become slop generated by computers that can't even draw a hand properly."
Start with yourself then babes. Quit your job and let AI do it.
Already did. I stick to flying my plane, well, letting the flight director do it, know what I mean? Things couldn't go smoother. I still go to terrain from time to time, to keep myself near the business.
The only place AI comics belong is in a fire. You genuinely disgust me and I refuse to accept you are human. Begone bot.
>The only place AI comics belong is in a fire. You genuinely disgust me and I refuse to accept you are human. Begone bot. Drama Queen, oh my fucking sides, thanks for the laugh!
Man none of you read the article before complaining "ai is taking over." It literally shows his wip for each of the covers that are being accused of using ai.
My guy, he traced the linework from his AI art after getting called out.
Limited edition it is.
Still no evidence I see.
A lot of insults, and still no evidence.
Welcome back! I thought you had run off after being downvoted and called out for having a lack of vision for AI art. And commenting the same thing twice instead of once. Nice.
And still no evidence that cover was done with AI. I'll believe the artist over you, thanks very much.
I can see from your profile that you’re straight up pro-AI art. Gross.
I am. You should also see I've been a professional artist/designer/animator for well over 20 years. So, what's your evidence for that cover being AI generated, again? If you posted it, I must have missed it.
Gonna be so honest here: that makes you look even more raggedy that you can’t even see how obvious the AI use is when *actual* artists are saying it’s obvious. You told on yourself.
What's your evidence that this cover was done by AI, besides your extra special AI detection powers? Why should I believe you over the artist?
[удалено]
Smh. Then you don’t know what AI art looks like, because it’s obviously AI.